Arylacetamides exhibit antiproliferative effects on non-transformed mammalian and vegetal cells and toxicity on crustaceans and fish embryos.

Journal: Drug and chemical toxicology
Published Date:

Abstract

Non-clinical steps for development, validation and biosafety of new medicines and products comprises studies on cells, proteins, and animals. Herein, we evaluated the toxic activity of antitumoral 2-chloro--arylacetamides on eukaryotic dividing cells and animal replacement models. Firstly, the cytotoxicity of chloro (compound ), bromo (compound ) and nitro (compound ) acetamides was analyzed by fluorescent assays in fibroblasts. Next, toxicity was evaluated on meristematic cells and 48h-living larvae. Finally, embryos of (zebrafish) were exposed to the compound (0.14 - 7.2 μg/mL) for 120 h exposure. All arylacetamides were cytotoxic on murine and human fibroblasts, with IC values ranging from 1.2 μg/mL (5.6 µM = compound on L-929) to 4.9 μg/mL (24 µM = compound on MRC-5 cells), respectively, and inhibited root growth from 10 to 100 µg/mL, corroborated by mitotic index reduction and cell cycle arrest in interphase ( < 0.05) without clastogenic injuries. Compound showed time- and concentration-dependent killing effects on zebrafish embryos. Its 24 h-acute toxicity at higher concentrations (1.93 and 7.2 μg/mL with 90% and 100% death) corroborated toxicity on aquatic organisms. After 96 h exposure at 0.52 μg/mL (2.55 µM), almost 100% of the embryos showed more than one lethal/sublethal morphological abnormality ( < 0.05). Then, all arylacetamides showed unspecific toxic effects, mainly the halogenated electrophile chloroacetamide. They present strong antimitotic action on vertebrate and vegetal cells, although such antiproliferative activity does not seem to be directly related to chromosomal damage inductions.

Authors

  • Kátia da Conceição Machado
    Laboratory of Experimental Cancerology (LabCancer), Department of Biophysics and Physiology, Federal University of Piauí, Teresina, Brazil.
  • Jurandy do Nascimento Silva
    Laboratory of Experimental Cancerology (LabCancer), Department of Biophysics and Physiology, Federal University of Piauí, Teresina, Brazil.
  • Débora Caroline do Nascimento Rodrigues
    Laboratory of Experimental Cancerology (LabCancer), Department of Biophysics and Physiology, Federal University of Piauí, Teresina, Brazil.
  • Stefânia Neiva Lavorato
    Department of Pharmaceutical Products, Faculty of Pharmacy, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
  • João Marcelo de Castro E Sousa
    Toxicological Genetics Research Laboratory (Lapgenic), Department of Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Federal University of Piauí, Teresina, Brazil.
  • Ana Amélia de Carvalho Melo-Cavalcante
    Toxicological Genetics Research Laboratory (Lapgenic), Department of Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Federal University of Piauí, Teresina, Brazil.
  • Patrícia Canteri de Souza
    Laboratory of Animal Ecophysiology, Department of Physiological Sciences, State University of Londrina, Londrina, Brazil.
  • Paulo César Meletti
    Laboratory of Animal Ecophysiology, Department of Physiological Sciences, State University of Londrina, Londrina, Brazil.
  • Diego Sousa Moura
    Laboratory of Toxicological Genetics, Department of Genetics and Morphology, University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil.
  • José Roberto de Oliveira Ferreira
    Center for Integrative Sciences, State University of Health Sciences of Alagoas, Maceió, Brazil.
  • Cesar Koppe Grisolia
    Laboratory of Toxicological Genetics, Department of Genetics and Morphology, University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil.
  • Ricardo José Alves
    Department of Pharmaceutical Products, Faculty of Pharmacy, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
  • Paulo Michel Pinheiro Ferreira
    Laboratory of Experimental Cancerology (LabCancer), Department of Biophysics and Physiology, Federal University of Piauí, Teresina, Brazil.

Keywords

No keywords available for this article.